• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What is reality?

Nimos

Well-Known Member
My understanding is that our perception of reality is an interface created for us by the unconscious mind. Like consider the data that is use to create the information on your computer screen. A bunch of binary bits that wouldn't make sense to most people, however the hardware takes the information and creates an image on the screen that we can make sense of.

We all have slightly different hardware so the image we consciously see can be slightly different from individual to individual. In some cases the hardware could be radically different or even damage so the image we individually see can be radically different.

So the reality you perceive is base on actual data input through your senses however how the image ends up being displayed on the interface that is perceive by the conscious mind can be different from individual to individual. The "better" the hardware the more accurate the image.

So reality is the data we share how we end up individually perceiving that data maybe different.

The unconscious mind is not only hardware however, it also has it's own programming. While we can't do much about the hardware, we can to some degree alter it's programming. It is what religion tries to do, it's what the concept of critical thinking tries to do. It's what brainwashing attempts to do. Alter the programs the unconscious mind runs on to alter the resultant image perceive by the conscious mind. It is, IMO, what the idea of "right thought" in Buddhism tries to do. Alter the image of reality created by the unconscious mind that we consciously perceive.
I think you are right in perceiving humans a biologic machines. Yet as I also mentioned to someone else, the hardware as you call it, need time to process the data and even for the data to arrive to us. Like humans on Earth can look at a star and some aliens closer to it, wont be able to see it, as it might have exploded or whatever already, so we receive different data which we then turn into different realities.

But as in my original example, even for humans if the speed at which we travel are huge enough our realities changes even though we started out more or less from the same reality. Time is so weird :D

Just remembered another thing, unrelated to this, but just something that Einstein wondered about, not really sure if he figured it out. But imagine you travel with the speed of light and then hold a mirror up in front of you, can you then see a reflection of yourself? :)
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
@Nakosis ,

doesn't pink exist as a range of wavelengths of visible light?

@Nimos , the future doesn't exist yet? now it does... now it does... now it does.... etc...

The future = now+1? ( 1 is **any** unit of time )
 

PureX

Veteran Member
If we talk about reality in terms of time, then we have three different ones. past, present and future. We can't see or experience the future, we can learn from the pasts and observe it, yet we never really experience present, except an illusion of it.

So we are basically always living in the past, so would that mean that we never really experience reality? Its a funny thought I think :)
Reality is 'what is'. But we know only those parts of 'what is' that we can experience, and comprehend. Which isn't much of the whole of it. And our comprehension is dubious, at that. So, ... I think we humans really ought to be a lot more humble and open-minded than we are.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
@Nakosis ,

doesn't pink exist as a range of wavelengths of visible light?

Nope, not part of the visible light spectrum. Freaky.
Science explains why the color pink doesn’t exist
paris_hilton_pink.jpg
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
I posted this in another thread, relating something else, but it made me wonder, how people perceive reality.

As we know time is relative, so it depend on speed and acceleration. So if we take two identical watches and throw one of them in a spaceship and keep the other one on Earth. Now we accelerate the spaceship and let it go around Earth at the speed of light for a few days and then bring it back again, then the watch will show a different time than the one on Earth, in fact it will be behind. So time have passed more slowly for the watch in the spaceship than the watch on Earth. Now that is pretty weird, in it self.

But lets try to make it slightly more weird. Since that is true for the watches, its also true for us as humans. Even though we all perceive time equally here on Earth, we are actually living in different realities, your "now" is not my "now". the difference is simply so small than we don't perceive it as such. So now we are going to screw it up even more. So I put you in a spaceship and fire you into space at the speed of light. Now time is really going slow for you, so I age much faster than you. But my past is also changing compared to yours as I have more years of it. But it haven't happened for you yet as it haven't caught up with you. So when you finally reach your destination nothing really seems to have changed a lot for you, but I would have been long dead. And your perception of reality as you remember it, also doesn't exist anymore, but is in fact the past and not something that happened yesterday but maybe 100 of years ago, depending on how long you have been travelling for.

So lets make it even stranger. Now you arrive at you destination and encounter an alien race, which turns out to be humans from Earth, having developed faster than light space travel or wormhole technology and therefore reached the destination faster than you did, so basically you traveled into the future of humanity. So now your understanding of reality is completely screwed :D


So how do you see reality, is it individual or do we actually share it with each other?


In all cases i go with the definition(s), which often causes confusion and conflict with people who like to make things up

Reality :
  1. the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

  2. the state or quality of having existence or substance.
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Take one year off hike a whole summer along the pacific crest trail and see if that cures you of such questions.

Moattt.png
 

Unguru

I am a Sikh nice to meet you
doesn't pink exist as a range of wavelengths of visible light?

I've read in a Science journals that it actually doesn't exist. It's very hard to come to terms with but it is the truth, pink is an illusion.
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
Reality is what we perceive, around us, based on our collective sensory systems. We all have human DNA and human nature. We have five senses, with each acting like analytical tools, that collect data from various aspects of reality into the human brain for processing. Reality becomes common to all due to common sensory hardware and neural software.

Sight deals with the wave/particle duality of visible light energy. Hearing deals with waves, at much lower frequencies, than visible light. There is a gap between. Sight is more connected to micro reality, while hearing is more geared toward macro reality.

Smell and taste deal with molecules and chemicals via receptors surfaces on these organs. The human brain organizes these molecules into classes, such as sweet and sour. Touch deals with mass, inertia and position and other properties of matter, such as hot and cold. We use all these tools together, at the same time, to view reality as an integrated whole.

Reality is like the layers of an onion. Our sensory systems allow us to view the outer layers of the reality onion. Science and technology have developed tools, which can extend our the range of our five senses. Science, when it can, tries to make use of all five sensory extensions, together, to define extended reality. Science allows us to perceive deeper layers of the onion of reality, and builds upon the instinctive foundation of the outer layers common to all of us; humans.

The problem begins as we go beyond the middle layers to distant aspects of reality, like the massive universe or the smallest sub particles of matter. We cannot use all our sensory systems, at the same time, when we deal with these extreme things. We cannot taste, touch, smell or hear a distant galaxy or the tiny quarks, since they are too far, or too small. The tools are not there.

These inner most layer of reality, rely on something referred to as the sixth sense. The six sense is the five senses integrated into a whole, by the brain, into a platform of 5-D unity. The sixth sense is more like software than hardware.

We know the outer most lawyers of the reality onion, through personal experience. We can also trust the middle layers, using tangible sciences, like Chemistry and Biology, which make use of all the senses. This becomes the extended five sense integrated base on which we extrapolate, to the limits of the inner layers. We have to extrapolate the core layers of the onion, since in these layers we often only have single sense science, such as the highly extended sight of astronomy.

We try to extrapolate from where the senses can all be used, at the same time, to the inner layers where only some or one of the senses can be used, by default. The inner layers of the onion of reality are much fuzzier, than the outer layers, since the inner layer contain the sixth sense; mind eyes or frontal lobe software, and not only the direct five sense foundation.

The uncertainty principle of physics is connected to the sixth sense, since single senses, have to be used to infer five sense reality. This can cause the natural platform to lose its natural calibration. In other words, we may assume quarks are building blocks of matter. However, we do not have a way to explain how the reaction of oxygen and hydrogen to form water is due to quarks. We just assume. This can cause us to depart from the 5-D foundation in favor of one sense. I am not saying quarks may not be responsible, but without a way to interface back to five senses, the base changes by default; uncertainty.

The chemistry and biology approach, compared to modern physics, was more consistent with the five senses. In the lab all senses will be used. Physics is causing a departure from the natural integration, that had been built on the outer layers connected to the natural human sensory systems. Physics will even tell you, not to use common sense, but maintain uncertainty.

I attribute this to the nature of an onion. Common sense says that an onion grows from the center outward and and not from the surface inward. However, human sensory systems are naturally tuned to the surface and we had to do this backwards by default. Although from the core is common sense, if we build from the core of the onion, but the surface is not consistent with basic five senses, it is the wrong center. A proper center will naturally build the outer layers and reveal the same sensory reality as is in our DNA. It will also be consistent with extended reality seen through 5 sense science tools; middle layers of the onion.
 

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
That is interesting can you explain in what way you think its nonsense?

I'll probably wish that I had looked over my attachment to this message at least once more before posting, but I wanted to get this to you before I get too distracted and forget my promise. Note: There is an additional brief paper that I intend to add as an appendix to the attachment posted here as soon as I find it on my hard drive. The paper to be added describes a thought-experiment which, IMO, sheds light on why it is that I think Einstein's STR is nonsense.

P.S. I found my additional brief paper and have attached it to this message.
 

Attachments

  • Chronological Order and a Double Triplet Scenario.pdf
    849.6 KB · Views: 0
  • Hypothetical Experiment.pdf
    217.8 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:

Nimos

Well-Known Member
I'll probably wish that I had looked over my attachment to this message at least once more before posting, but I wanted to get this to you before I get too distracted and forget my promise. Note: There is an additional brief paper that I intend to add as an appendix to the attachment posted here as soon as I find it on my hard drive. The paper to be added describes a thought-experiment which, IMO, sheds light on why it is that I think Einstein's STR is nonsense.

P.S. I found my additional brief paper and have attached it to this message.
Thanks I will look at them later :)
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
I'll probably wish that I had looked over my attachment to this message at least once more before posting, but I wanted to get this to you before I get too distracted and forget my promise. Note: There is an additional brief paper that I intend to add as an appendix to the attachment posted here as soon as I find it on my hard drive. The paper to be added describes a thought-experiment which, IMO, sheds light on why it is that I think Einstein's STR is nonsense.

P.S. I found my additional brief paper and have attached it to this message.
First of all, im not really good at all this math stuff and not really physics either, so that is at least a good start :D
But I don't really get why you jump to the conclusion that Einsteins STR is nonsense? Because when you do the time test with speed, so the faster you move the slower time goes, that is prooven to be correct as far as I know. So how do you account for that?

But from what I understand in the PDF, just to briefly sum it up.
In the first one it is concluded that you can't observe a difference between length contraction and relativity, so they could both be true, right
In the second one with the experiment the person you quote writes this:

“You had a good idea in using the divergence of light beams to test SR and Lorentz theory. Yet this in my opinion must remain a thought experiment because we have no means today to obtain a contraction of lengths observable. In effect, in order to produce a contraction of 5/100 of the original length, one must reach the speed of 100,000 Km/sec, which is largely beyond our possibility.”

So the experiment is none testable with current technology, so that doesn't really proof anything, as far as I understand, but is rather an unknown. So how do you conclude that Einsteins STR is nonsense then?

I have to admit that I also had to seek help elsewhere to even really understand the issue, so ill suggest you watch this video, which explains the issue with length contraction. And at least to me, his explanation (besides all the math, which is basically noise for me :)) make rather good sense. Is what he is talking about relevant to what you think about length contraction and STR?

 

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
First of all, im not really good at all this math stuff

I hear you. All of us who struggle with the math can spend a lot of time trying to get through calculations. That's why I left the calculations out of my first paper and settled on pictures that focused on one primary issue: length contraction. I omitted the more popular STR topic: time dilation, i.e. which occurs when clocks function more slowly the faster they move.

You wrote: But I don't really get why you jump to the conclusion that Einsteins STR is nonsense?

Me: :) My guess is that you'll get tired of trying to make sense of my reasoning long before I give up trying to explain my reason for declaring STR nonsense. Nevertheless, I'll give it another try. You can holler "stop!" when you've had enough.

You wrote: Because when you do the time test with speed, so the faster you move the slower time goes, that is proven to be correct as far as I know. So how do you account for that?

Me: You have just told me that,
  • based on a test that you did not perform,
  • someone concluded that "X's time goes slower, the faster X moves",
  • that you believe what you've read or heard, and
  • that you've read or heard that that conclusion has been proven.
I am acquainted with a couple of tests that have been performed and am aware of the conclusion that moving clocks function slower the faster they are moved,
I once was acquainted with a man who also predicted that a moving clock would function slower the faster it is moved and who considered STR nonsense. How do you account for that?

Moreover, in my first pdf, page 13, first paragraph, I wrote: "Table VI compares events in the Neo-Lorentzian Scenario (cf. Table II) and from a POV in SA in the STR scenario (cf. Table III) and confirms that the events are the same in both. This is, in part, why mainstream science acknowledges that, because the same mathematical formalism occurs in both theories, an experiment will not distinguish between them."

Note: two completely different theories (the Neo-Lorentzian theory and STR) predict the same result and experiments have been performed which confirm the result. So which theory do the experiments prove? Moreover, my acquaintance rejected both theories and had a third theory which predicted the same result. Was his theory any less proven than the first two?

You wrote: "But from what I understand in the PDF, just to briefly sum it up. In the first one it is concluded that you can't observe a difference between length contraction and relativity, so they could both be true, right."

Me: Careful now. In my first pdf, I described three variant scenarios. The first scenario was Newtonian; the second was Neo-Lorentzian; and the third was STR. In Section II and III of the first pdf, my descriptions showed that the Neo-Lorentzian scenario and the first half of the STR scenario had identical consequences. And I quoted the Wikileaks' mainstream scientific claim: that because the same mathematical formalism occurs in both theories, an experiment will not distinguish between them.
["Lorentz Ether Theory" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory third paragraph.

I found about that claim back when I wrote the second pdf that I shared with you. When I finished most of that paper, I went to well-known physics forum which had a very strict policy against any post criticizing STR. I posted a description of my hypothetical experiment and asked what STR would say the experimental result would be. I was promptly banned, but not before a relativist told me that, at that time [latter half of first decade of 21st century], there was no experiment that would distinguish between the Neo-Lorentzian theory and STR.
So, banned with no opportunity to explore the matter further in the forum, I wrote up the hypothetical experiment in my second pdf and sent it to a second acquaintance, Joseph Levy, who was and is a Neo-Lorentzian. He looked my paper over and agreed that my hypothetical experiment would indeed have different results according to Neo-Lorentzian theory and STR. But, he pointed out, although my idea for a though-experiment was a good one, given current technological limitations, it will never be performed. I was not dismayed: after all, Levy's response confirmed that, as ignorant as I am, I recognized the difference between Neo-Lorentzian length contraction and STR length contraction. Neo-Lorentzian theory predicts a very literal, real length contraction. STR describes a bogus length contraction.

You wrote: "I have to admit that I also had to seek help elsewhere to even really understand the issue, so ill suggest you watch this video, which explains the issue with length contraction. And at least to me, his explanation (besides all the math, which is basically noise for me :)) make rather good sense. Is what he is talking about relevant to what you think about length contraction and STR?"

Me: Ahhh! Don Lincoln. I know of him. Worked and may still work at CERN. Among one of the leading American physicists. He used to (and may still) hang out at the physics forum that banned me. Top-notch mainstream science credentials. [I could never figure out why he hung out from time to time in the forum. Well-informed physicists don't typically mingle with low-class relativists in public forums.]

Don's video spiel is standard stuff. Nothing in it is new to me. You ask if what Don says is relevant to what I think about about length contraction and STR. His description of length contraction is a substantially mathematical version of the length contraction effect in the first half of my STR scenario. In other words, Don's video is just one half of the story.

You wrote: "In the second [pdf] with the experiment the person you quote writes this:

“You had a good idea in using the divergence of light beams to test SR and Lorentz theory. Yet this in my opinion must remain a thought experiment because we have no means today to obtain a contraction of lengths observable. In effect, in order to produce a contraction of 5/100 of the original length, one must reach the speed of 100,000 Km/sec, which is largely beyond our possibility.”

So the experiment is none testable with current technology, so that doesn't really proof anything, as far as I understand, but is rather an unknown. So how do you conclude that Einsteins STR is nonsense then?"


Me: Once more, Joseph Levy's words, which you quote above, confirm that, as ignorant as I am, I know the difference between Neo-Lorentzian length contraction and STR length contraction. Neo-Lorentzian length contraction describes a theoretical, literal, real contraction of a physical object; STR does not.

If you still don't understand my objection to STR, don't lose sleep over it. I am an anti-relativist and I'm pretty sure that nobody's going to persuade me to change my mind. Currently we anti-relativists appear to be a minority group. I'm content with that. Making converts to anti-relativity is not my goal in life..
 
Last edited:

Nimos

Well-Known Member
Me: You have just told me that,
  • based on a test that you did not perform,
  • someone concluded that "X's time goes slower, the faster X moves",
  • that you believe what you've read or heard, and
  • that you've read or heard that that conclusion has been proven.
I am acquainted with a couple of tests that have been performed and am aware of the conclusion that moving clocks function slower the faster they are moved,
I once was acquainted with a man who also predicted that a moving clock would function slower the faster it is moved and who considered STR nonsense. How do you account for that?
I would assume that the guy you are talking about could provide some evidence for what he is claiming. I agree that I haven't tested this my self, but that I put my trust in the scientific method and that people knowing about these things, would be all over the News if it weren't true. Also I would expect all GPS systems to not work correctly and would wonder why we send satellites into space, if it didn't work. But again, im unable to test it personally, so I put my trust in what I can see and the lack of evidence claiming it to be untrue.

Your explanation make it sound, like you believe there is some sort of "conspiracy" going on and "them" wanting to hide the truth. Do you see it like that? And also what would be the idea of doing it? And why wouldn't any scientist jump at proofing Einstein wrong, that would give them some credit, I assume?

That guy in the video, start out by saying that those promoting the length contraction theory, do this because they misunderstand or uses relativity wrong, even though it seems like they are doing it right. Do you agree with that?
 
Last edited:

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
I would assume that the guy you are talking about could provide some evidence for what he is claiming.

???
  • Experiments have shown that moving clocks function slower the faster they move relative to earth and function faster the slower they move relative to earth.
  • The results of the experiments are statistically consistent and predictable using the Lorentz transformation equations.
  • STR explains the results one way.
  • Neo-Lorentzian theory explains the results another way.
  • My acquaintance explained the results a third way.
  • All three explanations cite the same results as support for their arguments.
  • The three explanations differ from each other.
  • So yes, my acquaintance could provide some experimental support for what he was claiming.
  • My acquaintance differed from the STR and Neo-Lorentzian proponents in affirming that experimental results cited in support of three different theories does not constitute "evidence" for any of the theories.
I agree that I haven't tested this my self, but that I put my trust in the scientific method and that people knowing about these things, would be all over the News if it weren't true. Also I would expect all GPS systems to not work correctly and would wonder why we send satellites into space, if it didn't work. But again, I'm unable to test it personally, so I put my trust in what I can see and the lack of evidence claiming it to be untrue.

Right. And I trusted the Neo-Lorentzians to be serious and to make a genuine effort to present their theory rationally and reasonably just as I trusted my acquaintance to do the same.
IMO, one of the principal rules in serious, rational, reasonable argumentation is that we don't propose theories that say GPS systems should not work correctly if our theory is correct, when there's ample indication that they do whether Theory A, B, or C are put forward to explain the GPS systems.

Your explanation make it sound, like you believe there is some sort of "conspiracy" going on and "them" wanting to hide the truth. Do you see it like that? And also what would be the idea of doing it? And why wouldn't any scientist jump at proofing Einstein wrong, that would give them some credit, I assume?
  • I don't believe there's a conspiracy going on among mainstream scientists to "hide the truth."
  • I do believe that some among them have vested interests in maintaining the primacy of Einstein's STR.
  • If I did believe there's a conspiracy [which I don't], I'd probably also believe that you have either been duped by it or are a co-conspirator. :D
That guy in the video, start out by saying that those promoting the length contraction theory, do this because they misunderstand or uses relativity wrong, even though it seems like they are doing it right. Do you agree with that?"
  • Go to the video in YouTube.
  • There you'll see this:
  • Screenshot_2019-06-22 Length contraction the real explanation - YouTube.jpg
  • Down below the screen to the lower right you'll see three dots.
  • Click on them and you'll get a pop-up menu that gives you two options: "Report" and "Open transcript".
  • Open the transcript and find the portion that you're referring to.
  • I'm having difficult finding the part where Lincoln says: "those promoting the length contraction theory, do this because they misunderstand or uses relativity wrong, even though it seems like they are doing it right."
  • See attached transcript.
  • What specific portion are you referring to?
  • P.S. This isn't where you ask me if it's possible that I think STR is nonsense because I don't understand it, is it? Because if it is, I think we've reached my "Bus Stop" and I'm going to bid you "adieu" before I get off this bus.
Someday, when you have leisure time and are willing to read the pdfs I shared with you, go to page 7 of the first pdf and make yourself comfortable.
  • In Figure 17, vehicle SB approaches SA.
  • In Figure 18, triplet B1 is adjacent to A1 according to everybody in SA.
  • Suppose, by pure coincidence, all clocks in SA show 12:00 p.m when triplet A1 is adjacent to B1 according to everybody in SA.
  • Now notice in Figure 26, vehicle SA approaches SB.
  • And in Figure 27, triplet A1 is adjacent to B1 according to everybody in SB.
  • Now, suppose again, by pure coincidence, all clocks in SB show 12:00 p.m when triplet A1 is adjacent to B1 according to everybody in SB.
  • Summary so far: All triplets in both vehicles happen to agree that it's 12:00 p.m., that A1 and B1 are adjacent to each other, and according to everybody in SA, SA is stationary and SB is moving, but according to everybody in SB, SB is stationary and SA is moving.SB's velocity relative to SA is necessarily equal to SA's velocity relative to SB.
  • Because, at the outset of the STR scenario, I specified that relative velocity between the two vehicles is such that:
    • The the length of SB and the distances between SB's triplets are half of the length of SA and the distances between the triplets in SA; and
    • The the length of SA and the distances between SA's triplets are half of the length of SB and the distances between the triplets in SB.
  • If an hour later on SA's clocks it's 1:00 p.m., triplet B3 is adjacent to triplet A3 as shown in Figure 24.
  • Similarly, if an hour later on SB's clock it's 1:00 p.m., triplet A3 is adjacent to triplet B3 as shown in Figure 33.
  • If,
    • when it's 1:00 p.m. in SA, it must be 12:30 p.m. in SB, and
    • when it's 1:00 p.m. in SB, it must be 12:30 p.m. in SA,
    • What time is it when A3 and B3 are adjacent to each other?
 

Attachments

  • Don Lincoln Transcript.pdf
    389.6 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:

Nimos

Well-Known Member
Open the transcript and find the portion that you're referring to.
00:50 It first uses relativity wrong, but in a way that seems right. 00:55 Then I identify the mistake and redo things properly.

To me that is how i understand him when referring to why relativity is being used wrong, is that incorrect? And later he explains that its because length is measured wrong for the moving car or something.

I have to admit that I really have no clue what the issue is. If you go to 8.00 in the video and watch from there to the end, doesn't he explain it?
 

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
00:50 It first uses relativity wrong, but in a way that seems right. 00:55 Then I identify the mistake and redo things properly.
To me that is how i understand him when referring to why relativity is being used wrong, is that incorrect? And later he explains that its because length is measured wrong for the moving car or something. I have to admit that I really have no clue what the issue is. If you go to 8.00 in the video and watch from there to the end, doesn't he explain it?

Okay. Here's what Don says ...
  • 00:43 Before I start, I should tell you that this video has an actual derivation.
  • 00:47 Sorry about that.
  • 00:48 But it has something even more important.
  • 00:50 It first uses relativity wrong, but in a way that seems right.
  • 00:55 Then I identify the mistake and redo things properly.
  • 00:58 This is a super important thing to see, because it’s so easy to make mistakes in relativity.
  • 01:04 The good thing is that the math is pretty easy.
My rewrite: "This video ...first uses relativity wrong, but in a way that seems right. Then I identify the mistake and redo things properly. This is a super important thing to see, because it's so easy to make mistakes in relativity."

Frankly, it's not clear to me what it is that Lincoln is referring to when he says "This video ... first uses relativity wrong, but in a way that seems right." Reading and re-reading the transcript, the closest I thing I can find is at:
  • 05:17 That means that the primed observer didn’t measure the location of both ends of the stick
  • 05:23 at the same time.
  • 05:25 And, since the stick is moving according to the primed observer, that’s not the way
  • 05:30 to measure its length.
  • 05:32 You’d totally not get the right answer.
But don't quote me. So, in answer to your first question, "To me that is how i understand him when referring to why relativity is being used wrong, is that incorrect?", I don't know.

And later he explains that its because length is measured wrong for the moving car or something. I have to admit that I really have no clue what the issue is. If you go to 8.00 in the video and watch from there to the end, doesn't he explain it?

:) The issue is "how long is a stick?" Answer: It depends on who is measuring it, on whether the person who measures it is at rest with respect to the stick or moving relative to the stick, and on the mathematical procedure for determining the stick's length. [Note: In other words, STR implicitly says measuring sticks don't have universally measurable, objective lengths: i.e. length is relative.]

As for Lincoln's video, by and large, I like it ... as far as it goes. I'd have saved myself at least a year, if not more, and a heck of a lotta grief fussing and fighting with relativists if that and a few other of Lincoln's video's had been around 15 years ago. The barn and pole "paradox" at 9:21 is relativistic trivia and an unnecessary distraction..

I was sorry to see that Lincoln said, at 08:35, "... the fact that both observers can claim that they are stationary" without emphasis, clarification, or further comment. That "fact" is why my STR scenario presents two different perspectives of the double triplets' relative motions. However, I watched a second video by Lincoln at What is reality? . In that video, Lincoln says:
  • 03:01 the entire story. There are two key points I want to make here.
  • 03:06 The first is that this makes absolutely no sense. Not because the two clocks tick at
  • 03:11 different rates- although that’s pretty weird- but because of an ambiguity.
  • 03:17 Suppose you label the two people as number 1 and number 2. If we take number 1 as seeing
  • 03:23 the clock to be stationary and number 2 as seeing it moving, we see that number 2 experiences
  • 03:29 more time than number 1.
  • 03:32 However, relativity requires that the laws are the same, no matter who is not moving,
  • 03:38 and this poses a problem. Suppose that we say number 2 is stationary with respect to
  • 03:44 his clock and number one says that the clock is moving. Then number one experiences a longer
  • 03:50 time.
  • 03:51 Okay, so this is a problem. If you pick person one to be stationary with the clock, then
  • 03:56 person two’s clock ticks faster. If you pick person two to be stationary with the
  • 04:02 clock, then person one’s clock ticks faster. And both people are equally right in saying
  • 04:08 that they are stationary. They can’t both have clocks ticking faster than the other.
  • 04:14 That just makes no sense at all.
  • 04:17 Either we have logically proven that relativity is just bogus, or there's something more to
  • 04:22 it. Given that the scientific community still embraces relativity, there has to be something
  • 04:27 more to it. And the answer is both very subtle and technical. So let’s dig into that.
This is, in a nutshell, the point of my first pdf. that STR is bogus. As Lincoln says, however, it's bogus unless and until he reveals the "very subtle and technical answer that "saves" STR. What is that answer? "Absolute Motion".
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
:) The issue is "how long is a stick?" Answer: It depends on who is measuring it, on whether the person who measures it is at rest with respect to the stick or moving relative to the stick, and on the mathematical procedure for determining the stick's length. [Note: In other words, STR implicitly says measuring sticks don't have universally measurable, objective lengths: i.e. length is relative.]
I think this is wrong from what I understood about STR. (still talking with limited knowledge here :D) But I watched another video from the same guy.


06:54 How is Einstein’s special theory of relativity different?
06:58 I’m not going to show you a derivation of Einstein’s equations because I did something
07:04 similar in a different video.
07:06 But I am going to tell you the two core assumptions that went into Einstein’s equation and then
07:11 show you them.
07:14 The first core assumption is that the laws of physics are the same for both people or
07:18 what we call observers in relativity lingo.
07:22 That also means that both of them can say that they are the unmoving person.
07:26 In fact, both of them has to insist that they are the unmoving person.
07:31 Note that this is true for both Galilean and Einsteinian equations.
07:37 The thing that is unique to Einstein is that he said the speed of light was the same for
07:42 all observers.

So if I understood him correct, the person from which you want to measure the other person location, have to be considered not moving. There is a longer explanation about this in the video So probably a good idea to watch all of it from start to finish, so im not saying or quoting something that I might have misunderstood :)
 
Top